Talk:Ruby McCollum/Archive01

I believe the information about Arthur Keith Black is included only to damage his reputation and to sell books written by C. Ellis, the first author listed in the suggested reading biography. Mr. Black was the prosecutor of this case and was doing his job in an era fraught with prejudice and injustice. There was a conspiracy to silence Ruby McCollum, and her story is an important one to keep alive as we study civil rights and discourse, but for the author to include (and keep adding back) information about Mr. Black being indicted for racketeering and to imply Mr. Black forged a will and was part of an effort to swindle assets are proof of my assertion that the entry lacks neutrality. Mr. Black was indicted, but he had a massive heart attack and the charges were never brought up again, even after he returned to private practice. His enemies did succeed in getting him indicted a second time on another matter, and on that indictment he was acquitted. Mr. Ellis apparently doesn't understand that indictments do not equal guilt in the United States of America, where his libelous books are allowed to be published without redress.

Mr. Ellis won't tell you Mr. Black had Mrs. McCollum moved to another county for her own safety and that instead of the electric chair or jail, he helped get her committed to an institution. Not ideal, but it was an effort. I also would like to point out a Time magazine article from 1954 does not mention the evil Mr. Black, nor does a play about this case feature an evil state prosecutor a a central figure. Mr. Ellis is trying to capitalize on the case for his own profit and is sensationalizing it rather than letting the facts stand on their own merit. He's even got a web site named not for himself as a compilation of his "doctoral" work, but after Ms. McCollum.

The first book he wrote was so inflammatory it was not considered for publication by university presses. In his promotional material, Mr. Ellis claims to have known all the parties in the case, when he could not have been more than 10 years old at the time. Additionally, the author paid to have a news release disseminated, trying to capitalize on the cancellation of a booksigning scheduled in the area where the McCollum trial occurred. He claimed the booksigning was cancelled becasue of continued fear 50 years after the trial. This is a good example of how the author gathers his facts. Had he not jumped to conclusions and made erroneous assumptions, he would have discovered Mr. Black's wife was a recently-deceased, long-term resident at Dowling Park, the retirement home where the booksigning was scheduled. It was cancelled because 1) they personally knew Mr. Black and knew that the cussing, drinking, loud-mouthed baffoon Mr. Ellis painted him to be in the book was contrived and highly inaccurate, 2) they did not want to help promote a libelous book and 3) at $10,000 per month, the Black family's involvement with Dowling Park was more significat that the Ellis family's.

Mr. Ellis again gets his facts wrong when he tells people Dr. Bill Cosby owns the rights to William Bradford Huie's book, based on Zora Neale Hurston's notes, about the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beencurious (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are other problems with the article, including the fact that it cites no references and that it contains original research. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the page with references so that the above criticisms are addressed adequately. By verifying the sources, the Wikipedia staff may, in their professional opinion, determine the soundness of the article.

C. Arthur Ellis, Jr., Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.21.117 (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a request to accept the edits and references contributed to the "Ruby McCollum" article. Each reference is carefully documented, and the edits were made in an effort to make the article flow more smoothly. Objections to the article on the talk page have no foundation in documentable sources, so I am requesting that the flags on the main article be removed.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.21.117 (talk) 17:37, August 17, 2008

Thank you for improving the article and adding some references, but the article is still full of original research. Statements about conspiracy theories and speculation about the reason why McCollum's name was misspelled on the death certificate are considered "original research" (a phrase that has a special meaning on Wikipedia; click the link to read the relevant policy).

The objections described above concerning the article's neutrality haven't been addressed. For example, there are no sources concerning the allegations that Arthur Keith Black was involved with a fraudulent will, nor is it clear what that has to do with the McCollum case.

I'm going to replace the banner that says there are no references with one that says the references need to be improved, but I'm afraid the other problems haven't been addressed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to address the problems you have identified by removing what have been interpreted as Keith Black's involvement in the forging of Blue's Will. This was never intended-only that he represented Mrs. Adams in presenting the will to Blue for authentication. Also, I have eliminated "conspiracy theories" since they cannot be documented. This should address the problems that you have identified, so I trust that flags regarding these issues will be removed.

Thanks,

C. Arthur Ellis, Jr., Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.225.223 (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I received this email from my aunt, Edna Hindson, who is the daughter of AK Black. These are her comments about the information submitted by Mr. Ellis.

Mary, I am still bothered by the wikipedia section that implies AK Black's indictment was related to Bolita. Strange...His indictment had nothing to do at all with that gambling game. It had to do with the following:

1.) His was a criminal lawyer and represented Judge Sam Smith who was doing some wrong dealings, such as having people, not AK Black, go to the jail and offer inmates a better deal if some money came forth. A criminal lawyer has to deal with criminals. He was known as the lawyer's lawyer and represented an estimated figure of some 40 plus lawyers and JUDGES. Even dishonest judges need a good lawyer. Check the Lake City Reporter if you want to really research this. Ellis didn't.

2.) Dad did paid for some court reporters/courtroom workers' lunch. He was not seeking special favors; you and I know he was just being kind. Think what you want. 3.) He did say to this same group, " When you point your finger of other people, you have three fingers pointing back at you." Yes, he was telling them, watch what you say. Indictment material????I guess they felt threatened and stated that when questioned.

I think very poor writing causes confusion in the reading of this material. It makes it look as if the 1975 matter was related to bolita; it was not.

I, Mary Paramore, am the author of the above complaints. At the time, I did not know how to sign my posts.

Mary paramore (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Mary Paramore

I find it fascinating the Ms. Parramore consistently attacks my reputation (against the policies of this web site), yet she offers no proof that my assertions about her father are true, except for her own "witnessing." Her downplaying Keith Black's indictment is almost laughable, were it not so pitiful. Read her comments carefully to see that her family's financial contributions to Dowling Park are supposed to trump my writing. this is a family accustomed to buying "respect," which I call fear. Anyone who reads the trial transcript can see that Ms Parramore is way off base about the kindness of her father to Ruby--he was out to fry her in the electric chair. This is incontrovertible, and not subject to debate, based on an actual court transcript.

My most recent publication, Zora Hurston And The Strange Case Of Ruby McCollum, has been lauded by the American Library Association and Midwest Book Review, among others. I think that this fact stands above the relative-biased rantings of a relative of A.K Black, the prosecutor in the Ruby McCollum case.

Signed,

C. Arthur Ellis, Jr., Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.124.208 (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh Mr. Ellis...

special note: Ellis' own wife wrote the "Midwest Book Review" article praising the book. That's just plain sad. The American Library Association Book Review Ellis mentions is a listing, not a review. It is a neutral description of the book. Hmmm...

... more evidence of your research abilities. I am his granddaughter. I was very clear about what is printed above -- I simply cut and pasted what my aunt, who is his daughter, said regarding the Wikipedia entry on Ruby McCollum and my grandfather's involvement in the case. If you read carefully and critically, you would note the spelling of my name is Paramore, not Parramore. As such and as a whole, I think my comments about your "scholarship" have been validated.

FYI, the 'contributions" made to Dowling Park were payment for care, not donations. They knew my grandfather personally, because he visited his wife in the Alzheimer's Unit frequently. You jumped to an inaccurate conclusion when your book signing was canceled, apparently never stopping to think that maybe someone actually read this self-published material and was not impressed enough to allow you to appear. Such an appearance would imply endorsement.

I believe your latest publication likely would be lauded. It appears you took out all the made-up "recreations of conversations" and other information based on what could not have been your first hand knowledge of the case because you were simply too young for that to have been factual. Thank you for taking your libelous book off the market.

163.192.12.89 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Mary Paramore

My, but your bias is showing, Ms. Paramore!

I could care less what relationship you are to Keith Black, and I didn't include it in my research, so your remarks are so many red herrings. As to my misspelling your name, typographical errors in online postings are rather frequent, don't you think? As to your comment about my taking out certain characterizations of your grandfather, I felt that doing so actually made him even more sinister and hypocritical. Smoking, drinking and cursing are, after all, lesser evils than racqueteering, the crime for which he was federally indicted, and not, as you posted, for buying lunches for court reporters. I have you to thank for this revision.

Change history, you cannot, no matter how hard you try. I will say, though, that your financial power is such that the Lake City Reporter editor, who loved my book, will not extend himself to send me a copy of the Lake City Reporter issues that carry the federal indictment of your grandfather. No matter, I have it from microfilm. I do wonder, however, why the microfilm is missing from three state libraries. Strange.

I seem to remember that you posted, "$10,000 per month, the Black family's involvement with Dowling Park was more significat that the Ellis family's." Now you're backpedalling and saying this is for the care of Keith Black's wife. You cannot run from the fact, however, that you laud this as as "signicat" (misspellings do happen, don't they?), implying that your family has some influence that my family does not. This is typical for your kind of people, who use money, power and influence to establish "facts."

Please post more. I can't wait to respond.

Have a nice Thanksgiving. C. Arthur Ellis, Jr, Ph.D.

By the way, just because you did not earn a Ph.D., it doesn't mean you have the right to castigate those who worked hard to earn such. (I'm referring to your use of "Mr. Ellis.") Attacking a person simply for who they are, including their degrees, is the lowest form of debate. It's called an argument "ad hominem," used by those who had rather go on the attack blindly, rather than address the facts of the case.'

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.117.62 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC) 

Like fish in a barrel...

Mr. Ellis:

So now my family’s power is keeping the Lake City Reporter editor from spending hours and hours digging through hard copy archives of a six-days-per-week print publication for issues from about 30 years ago to hand you your research on a silver platter. Have you ever been inside a newspaper archive? Do you truly understand what you are asking this person to do?

How many copies of Catcher in the Rye do you own? (Here, buddy, I'll help you out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_references_to_the_novel_The_Catcher_in_the_Rye ) The chip on your shoulder must be incredibly hard to bear after so many years. After all, you’ve been alive and kicking since well before this trial, having personally known every key player in the trial. Right?!?

The facts of the case are the facts of the case. Ugly, but true. My grandfather was the prosecutor for the State of Florida. It’s called a job and he did his job exceptionally well.

Apparently, your job is to take these facts and package them for retail by writing accompanying fiction to snazz it all up. Perhaps if the character you created to represent the State’s Attorney was somewhat close to what the people who actually knew the man understood him to be, we would not be having this online conversation. Of course, most of these people are dead now. (I smell a smoking gun...)

Additionally, if you truly don’t care about me, then why are you gloating about having discovered my education extends only to the Masters level? You cared enough to Google… and to yell in bold... and to try to educate me by using a big Latin term you learned in your pursuit of BS, MS and PhD. Surely you know the words behind those letters, right?!? I call you Mr. Ellis because I do not respect your scholarship. That could be fixed, but, alas, apparently not in the near future.

Also, since I am so in need of a better education, could you possibly define raqueteering for me? I think it’s similar to swashbuckling, only with a tennis racquet. Oh, and here's a little information for your ad hominem claim http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html. Spot on...

163.192.13.89 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Mary Paramore